Aldi has been branded 'ruthless' after offering up more than £145,000 in compensation to force through a controversial supermarket development.

Birmingham City Council is bracing itself for a fight with the retail giant after the planning committee rejected its scheme to build at Old Horns Crescent in Great Barr last year.

Aldi appealed the decision prompting a public hearing which is set to take place next week.

Now the council has withdrawn two of its four objections.

An artist's image of the proposed Aldi store in Great Barr which councillors have branded 'visually poor'.

The committee had previously rejected the scheme due to the loss of protected open space, loss of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, whilst they argued it would be a 'visually poor' development and lacked 'critical analysis’ on how nearby roads would be impacted.

Since then Aldi has submitted further detail to satisfy the council's transport chiefs addressing the latter reason.

Read More

But in a move which sparked anger, they also vowed to stump up £145,430 to be spent on 'ecological enhancement works' compensating for the loss of open space which is classed as a Site of Important Nature Conservation.

Cllr Dr Barry Henley (Lab, Brandwood) on the planning committee, said: "The site is an important conservation area and we said as a committee it should not be given up for a supermarket, as simple as that.

"It is not for officers to say the planning committee should accept a certain amount of money.

"It doesn't matter we have got £145,000 to spend because it has no actual intrinsic value while the site is of intrinsic value."

Cllr Henley compared it to the council's battle with Lidl over their supermarket plans on Pershore Road, Stirchley, adding: "You can't put issues to one side these are ruthless developers.

Read More

"When we said Lidl can't build on Pershore Road because there is a bowling alley and a fitness centre there, they knocked down the bowling alley and fitness centre.

"This is ruthless behaviour, if we remove a reason for objection, even if we win the appeal hearing they will come back again with a revised scheme.

"We will be on a slippery slope."

But Ian MacLeod, council planning director, said it would ‘weaken’ the council's position to keep defending an issue which had been 'resolved', while Tarndip Sidhu, planning solicitor, argued it opened the council up to further legal costs if a Government planning inspectorate deemed they had been 'unreasonable'.

The committee ultimately voted to withdraw the two reasons meaning they will fight Aldi on the loss of trees and the appearance of the building.